WASHINGTON – In assuring Americans that BP won't control the compensation fund for Gulf oil spill recovery, President Barack Obama failed to mention that the government won't control it, either.
That means it's anyone's guess whether the government can, in fact, make BP pay all costs related to the spill.
Obama aimed high in his prime-time Oval Office address Tuesday night — perhaps higher than the facts support and history teaches — as he vowed to restore livelihoods and nature from the still-unfolding calamity in the Gulf of Mexico.
A look at some of his statements and how they compare with those facts:
OBAMA: "We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused and we will do whatever's necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy. ... Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company's recklessness. And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent, third party."
THE FACTS: An independent arbiter is no more bound to the government's wishes than an oil company's. In that sense, there is no certainty BP will be forced to make the Gulf economy whole again or that taxpayers are off the hook for the myriad costs associated with the spill or cleanup. The government can certainly press for that, using legislative and legal tools. But there are no guarantees and the past is not reassuring.
It took 20 years to sort through liability after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, and in the end, punitive damages were slashed by the courts to about $500 million from $2.5 billion. Many people who had lost their livelihoods in the spill died without ever seeing a check.
___
OBAMA: "In the coming days and weeks, these efforts should capture up to 90 percent of the oil leaking out of the well."
THE FACTS: BP and the administration contend that if all goes as planned, they should be able to contain nearly 90 percent of the worst-case oil flow. But that's a big "if." So far, little has gone as planned in the various remedies attempted to shut off or contain the flow. Possibly as much as 60,000 barrels a day is escaping. BP would need to nearly triple its recovery rate to reach the target.
___
OBAMA: Temporary measures will capture leaking oil "until the company finishes drilling a relief well later in the summer that is expected to stop the leak completely."
THE FACTS: That's the hope, but experts say the relief well runs the same risks that caused the original well to blow out. It potentially could create a worse spill if engineers were to accidentally damage the existing well or tear a hole in the undersea oil reservoir.
___
OBAMA: "From the very beginning of this crisis, the federal government has been in charge of the largest environmental cleanup effort in our nation's history."
THE FACTS: Early on, the government established a command center and put Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen in charge of coordinating the overall spill response. But officials also repeatedly have emphasized that BP was "responsible" and they have relied heavily on BP in making decisions from hiring cleanup workers to what oil dispersing chemicals to use. Local officials in the Gulf region have complained that often they don't know who's in charge — the government or BP.
___
OBAMA: "We have approved the construction of new barrier islands in Louisiana to try and stop the oil before it reaches the shore."
THE FACTS: Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and local officials pleaded for weeks with the Army Corps of Engineers and the spill response command for permission to build about 40 miles of sand berms along the barrier islands.
State officials applied for an emergency permit to build the berms May 11, but as days went by Jindal became increasingly angry at federal inaction. The White House finally agreed to a portion of the berm plan on June 2. BP then agreed to pay for the project.
The corps was worried that in some cases such a move would alter tides and drive oil into new areas and produce more harm than good.
___
OBAMA: "Already, I have issued a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling. I know this creates difficulty for the people who work on these rigs, but for the sake of their safety and for the sake of the entire region, we need to know the facts before we allow deepwater drilling to continue."
THE FACTS: Obama issued a six-month moratorium on new permits for deepwater drilling but production continues from existing deepwater wells.
___
Associated Press writers Matthew Daly, H. Josef Hebert and Jim Drinkard in Washington, Brian Schwaner in New Orleans and Carol Druga in Atlanta contributed to this report.

Its very clear at this point that BO is incompetent and he has surrounded himself with a cabinet of clueless czars and appointees. He is way over his head .His strongest skill is reading a teleprompter. I thought only the brightest came out of Harvard? I wonder what program he used to get that sheepskin. Sounds like just another back room deal.

If Bush were the one in power during this mess, you'd be screaming from the mountain tops about how it's his fault and he's not doing enough. Oh wait, Dems are still blaming Bush for this one. Ooooooooh yeahhhhh.

The Bush bungle had more to do with the state and local governments not approving federal aid, so the feds couldn't step in like they needed to in time (example, the city government's decision to not make evacuation mandatory and utilize the school buses that could have evacuated everyone from the city, as well as the fact that the people who died in Katrina and suffered in the city CHOSE NOT TO EVACUATE). Did Bush screw up? Yes, but the failures of the local and state governments (as well as the lack of common sense by people who thought they could weather a category 5 hurricane in a city that was protected by levees that could only stand up to a category 3 hurricane) increased the problems during Katrina exponentially over any of Bush's screw ups there.

This oil thing has more to do with the feds immediately stepping in and doing things like blocking Bobby Jindal's plan to stop oil from getting into the wetlands, as well as refusing to use the 3 oil skimmers offered to us by the Dutch. Obama has bungled move after move here. Now they're retroactively doing things like having Robert Gibbs outright lie to the American people about things like the sand berms that were being blocked by the Feds.

"I'm not speaking for anybody in the House of Representatives but myself," Barton explained, "but I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday. I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown. In this case a $20 billion shakedown."
[Photos: Obama meets with BP executives]
Wrapping up, Barton said: "I apologize. I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong, is subject to some sort of political pressure that is, again, in my words — amounts to a shakedown, so I apologize."

I can't believe you guys are so blind to blame Obama. What more can he possibly do (other than what John said)? Conservatives gripe because there is too much government interference in business, now they gripe because there is not enough. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!! If I remember correctly, it wasn't Obama standing on the podium yelling "Drill baby, Drill". This is BP's fault, plain and simple. They have a shoddy safety record, and now it is biting them in the butt. BP will come out on top, though, it is the residents of the Gulf coast that will suffer.

And I said that Bush screwed up there, but again, the local and state governments mistakes (remember the 500 school buses that were just sitting there, that could have evacuated every resident left in New Orleans?) and reluctance to take legitimate action on their part (forcing people to evacuate instead of allowing them to stay in a freaking bowl just waiting to be filled with water) compounded Bush's failures.

And I'm not saying that this is Obama's fault. What I'm saying is that the Obama administration has botched the cleanup effort from the get go. There's a difference between blaming his administration for the leak (which I never did) and being ticked off with him failing to make any of the right decisions about how to solve things and minimize the impact of BP's failure until nearly 3 months after the fact.

You haven't answered what the administration is supposed to do. There is not a cabinet member in charge of oil spill cleanup. Everyone in the industry (Exxon, etc) has commented that BP is handling the incident in the manner similar to how they would handle it. So what then, Obama tells BP to get lost, and then you lose the manpower and equipment that BP has and the government does not? I am mad at BP because they balked on safety measures that could have prevented this mess. But it has happened, so keeping BP involved is crucial.

EXHIBIT A) Obama's administration refused to permit Louisiana to create sand berms that would have prevented oil from reach the wetlands, instead they stonewalled the effort for a month. Finally, Bobby Jindal says "Screw you Feds, we're doing this without your permission." Robert Gibbs immediately turns around and makes the claim that the Federal government has been supporting the proposition to build the sand berms to stop the oil. Which was an outright lie.

EXHIBIT B) Obama REJECTED the offer of several oil skimmers by the Dutch on day 3 of the spill. Now he is finally "reconsidering it." Each of these skimmers was capable of collecting up to 5k tons of oil each day. http://www.examiner.com/x-325-Global...y-oil-skimmers

Still using the ol Bush and Katrina? Really? That was bull crap from the first time you liberals tried to use it. How can a sitting President do anything about a natural disaster on city that allowed people to settle in a area below sea level (right next to the sea)? This is why I can not stand liberals. What you people should be taking from this, is the government does not have the resources to just snap their fingers and make it all go away.

You blamed Bush for Iraq all while ignoring the democrats voting record on it. You still blamed Bush even after democrats used the lie of they were against the wars to get control of congress in 2006. We were still their after. They used the lie again to get the white house and we are still their.

You blamed Bush for Gitmo. The prisoners are still there and by the way Obama just got a ruling that said it is OK to do that to prisoners as long as we do it in the actual war zone. Nice slice.

You blamed Bush for Katrina but where has Obama been during all the recent floods that killed people in the midwest? Does he hate white people like you claimed Bush hates black people?

You Blamed Bush for 9-11. Said because he read a book to children for a few minutes.

You blamed Bush for the environment. Funny they busted the people jiving data and that the temps have been flat to cooling over the last decade.

Where has all your outrage gone? Or was it as I said the whole time. You guys are liars only pushing your lies for politics? I have not heard one word from you people regarding Obama continuing almost every one of Bush's policies.

Only break Obama has so far is that farce of the healthcare bill that is going to cost a good portion of you young ballaz $200 to $700 a month in insurance premiums and cause the rest of the people who set out to get jobs with benefits to end up loosing much of those benefits.

At the end of the day, people need to use some not so common sense. Obama is not going to go down and stop the well. I am sure at the end of the day, the parties involved will have to look at all actions taken and try and improve. Only thing that is going to tick me off regarding this whole thing is Obama is trying to use the situation to push Cap and Trade. That is bull crap.

Jeremy, I think blaming Obama is more of a stab at all you people blaming Bush for every little part of your life that went wrong. I have not heard a peep on this board regarding Obama's policies that are exactly like Bush's. Kind of tells me you people are dishonest in your criticisms.

Nope - just pointing out the partisan b.s. that goes on. If you can't see that Bush and the goverment did anything wrong at all with Katrina but Obama and crew has done nothing but make mistakes with the oil thing, then you simply have partisan politics b.s. syndrome.

No. Bush did nothing "wrong" with Katrina and Obama has done nothing wrong with the oil mess itself. BP should handle it and the government should make sure they have every resource at BP's hands to handle it.

Can you explain what Bush did wrong during Katrina? Everyone could have done better at it, but, you show me one emergency you have ever been in that you handled perfect. If you say you have, then you have never been in one. That is why every time you guys made your stupid attacks on Bush I explained that you guys are lying to yourself or just parroting professional agitators.

I will point out now that Obama is just making hollow speech after hollow speech when he knows he has no plan and then to use it to start pushing Cap and Trade again is absolutely horrid. Didn't people learn from this insurance fiasco yet? I notice the level of pro obama crap has pretty much died on the vine on this board after that. Why is that?

When did I say that BP shouldn't be working on the spill? I never, i repeat NEVER said that. You're putting words into my mouth like you have every other time that we have had a debate, and it's absolutely amazing.

My nature to blame Obama? It was your nature to blame all of the US's problems on George Bush! You're being a hypocritical fool and it's starting to get annoying. Not only are you being a hypocrite, but you're putting words in my mouth.

It is Obama's job as president to be doing everything that he can to AID BP's cleanup, including accepting aid from foreign countries so that the Coast Guard can work more effectively. It's his job to approve measures that can save the wetlands from what will be nearly irreparable damage instead of stonewalling them because of environmental hippie groups that are worried about how a reef might be affected.

And of course the fact that Obama's TOP ADVISOR IS GETTING KICKBACKS FROM BP IS IMPORTANT HERE! It's just like Cheney and Haliburton! Wow! Why would they be harsh on the company that has been supporting them so thoroughly? Why? It wasn't until the AMERICAN PEOPLE BECAME OUTRAGED at the lack of governmental action and OVERSIGHT on BP's efforts (BP is using a chemical that has been proven to be extremely toxic as the dispersant when there are other chemicals out there that work as well without as many negatives) that Obama began playing hardball on BP. It took the American people to press Obama into actual action on this matter.

You're a fool if you believe that the government should not be aiding the cleanup instead of leaving it all to British Petroleum. It's going to take everyone working at max capacity to even begin to remotely clean up this spill, which is well on it's way to being nearly as devastating as the Ixtoc spill in 1979 as the rates of oil leaking from the Deepwater Horizon spill are increasing daily, since we were lied to from the beginning about how much oil was actually coming out of this well.

NIck....for the THIRD time....How exactly is the government supposed to be aiding? They don't have the equipment, manpower, or knowledge.

And where do you get getting a cost-free apartment from a BP ADVISOR, is the same as getting a cost-free apartment from BP itself? Advisor doesn't even mean that person is employed by BP. Advisor could mean a number of things.

I never said anything about Bush (except discussing a small thing about Katrina, and I didn't bring him up), much less blame him for anything.

"It took the American people to press Obama into actual action on this matter."
? If this was true and not merely your opinion, why would listening to the American people be a negative thing?

YOU, obviously didn't have a problem with Cheney getting "kickbacks" (you either voted for or supported the reelection of Bush/Cheney in 2004), so why do you have a problem with Emanuel?

Still using the ol Bush and Katrina? Really? That was bull crap from the first time you liberals tried to use it. How can a sitting President do anything about a natural disaster on city that allowed people to settle in a area below sea level (right next to the sea)? This is why I can not stand liberals. What you people should be taking from this, is the government does not have the resources to just snap their fingers and make it all go away.

Me thinks you are getting your libs and conserves mixed up on this one. It wasn't lib that brought up Katrina in this thread.

The problem with getting kickbacks is the liberals made a career for the last 8 years pointing it out including this board about how it was horrible and that they would never do such a thing. They would even start posts about it.

No, you got it completely wrong again. You're a little too quick on your assumptions here. Don't be so quick to go naming someone a lib. Even if I was defending Obama, which I actually wasn't if you just read a little closer, it wouldn't necessarily make me a lib. Even it I or someone is, what does that have to do with any the arguments? Too many people need to quit trying to throw that lib label (and cons on the flip side) around so quickly along with the thinking that it instantly voids that person's argument.

Both the democrats and republicans are crooked. Until they stop tacking kick backs from corporations and stop serving corporate interests it will continue to be like this. It's really pathetic when companies like Goldman Sachs are more powerful then our Federal Government. Look at the history of White House staff(both current and past) that came from or has ties to Goldman the most powerful company in the world.

What a slanted "fact check"
First sentence of the article- WASHINGTON – In assuring Americans that BP won't control the compensation fund for Gulf oil spill recovery, President Barack Obama failed to mention that the government won't control it, either.

The last sentence of the quote they are "fact checking"- the account must and will be administered by an independent, third party."

That is pretty clear- an independent 3rd party will review the claims to the account and disperse the funds- not BP and not The government. Fact checking the "fact check" finds a blatant mistake in the first sentence.... Obama did indeed clearly state the government will not control it, but merely stated that they are mandating that the account be set up.

That kind of sets the tone for the hack job the article does.

OBAMA: "In the coming days and weeks, these efforts should capture up to 90 percent of the oil leaking out of the well."
When stores have a sale, they phrase it.... Up to 50% off on all items!!! that could mean anywhere from .01% off UP TO 50%. The only way that statement would be incorrect is if they captured nothing at all. Of course it was phrased in the best possible light, "up to 90 percent", meaning that is the most they could capture in the best case scenario.

OBAMA: Temporary measures will capture leaking oil "until the company finishes drilling a relief well later in the summer that is expected to stop the leak completely."
THE FACTS: That's the hope, but experts say the relief well runs the same risks that caused the original well to blow out. It potentially could create a worse spill if engineers were to accidentally damage the existing well or tear a hole in the undersea oil reservoir.
The Author contends that drilling a relief well could suffer the same fate as the initial well. That is certainly possible. BUT, the safety protocalls and equipment are likely much more strict on the 2 relief wells, minimizing that danger. the alternative is to not drill the wells at all and let the entire reservoir leak out as it is now.
Factually, the statement is correct- the relief well "is expected to stop the leak completely." barring catastrophe, it is EXPECTED to stop the leak.

OBAMA: "We have approved the construction of new barrier islands in Louisiana to try and stop the oil before it reaches the shore."
and from the reaction to it..."The corps was worried that in some cases such a move would alter tides and drive oil into new areas and produce more harm than good."
Jindal is worried about his state, of course. BUT, what if the Army Corps found that it would lead to devastation in another state? What if Obama had allowed a hastily built berm that directed oil to a more populous or fragile region, making the situation worse? I appreciate the Army Corps prudence, and I am sure the surrounding states do as well.

OBAMA: "Already, I have issued a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling...........we need to know the facts before we allow deepwater drilling to continue."
THE FACTS: Obama issued a six-month moratorium on new permits for deepwater drilling but production continues from existing deepwater wells.

Obama stated he issued a moratorium on deepwater drilling- true. The author suggest it is untrue because there is still "production" from deepwater platforms. Production indicates the well is already drilled. Note the author does not say that there is "drilling" continuing- he expressly states production- a very careful choice of words.... The existing platforms are already connected and recovering the oil... They are beyond the process that caused the issue with this platform.

Obama has not handled this situation perfectly, but this article is nothing more than a disingenuous hack job.

Obama has not handled this situation perfectly, but this article is nothing more than a disingenuous hack job.

Which is the norm for virtually all political analysis. I like how the responsibility for disaster response is tied to one man (Bush or Obama) when the taxpayer has been paying billions yearly for huge organizations to be handling this task.

Maybe I am missing something but my recollection was that the main beef with Bush and Katrina was the fact that he had appointed an incredibly incompetent person to head up FEMA and then continued to praise him during obviously horrible handling of the situation.

Which is the norm for virtually all political analysis. I like how the responsibility for disaster response is tied to one man (Bush or Obama) when the taxpayer has been paying billions yearly for huge organizations to be handling this task.

I really dont see a correlation between Katrina and the gulf leak? spill? disaster?
FEMA was a train wreck during Katrina, so yes, the frustration is justified there... but I do not see where they should be expected to do any more than they are doing right now.
FEMA is about keeping people alive in the aftermath of an emergency, not controlling the emergency. FEMA could not stop Katrina, but they could keep people alive in the aftermath.

This event is much more comperable to chernobyl than Katrina. A toxic substance is escaping. Since there is currently no way to cut it off at the source, The job has become trying to reach some level of containment of the already released toxins in the face of changing wind and water currents. The immediate human danger is over- now it is a race to stop the leaking before the enviromental damage spreads.

One thing I have not heard addressed- perhaps I just missed it- How long after the relief wells are done does the leak stop?
Can they cap the current well after the oil begins to flow out of the relief well? will it just continue to flow at a reduced rate and allow the current recovery process to work better? Will the oil continue to escape for a period of time after the relief wells are drilled? Is it August before the wells are drilled and december when the pressure is relieved enough to stop flowing?

The relief well is going to take a very long time and from what I read the precision of that well has to be with in a few feet over 5000 ft below. It is going to be a monumental feat.

Brett maybe your not a liberal but the Bush and Katrina issue was strictly a liberal argument used to attack the president.

The issue with Bush and katrina was purely political just like the fact he read to the children a few more minutes after hearing the planes hit or the fact he was in Air Force 1 during the whole ordeal. Pure politics that was repeated on this board over and over again. Bush had to fire the guy after all the political storm over Katrina. Can anyone tell me how many times the president is directly involved in the yearly floods that hit the midwest? Was FEMA involved in Tennesee this year? Typically those events are handled by the local government and the states. Who do you usually hear of going out to help? The National Guard is who. They are there on behalf of the Governor. Katrina was purely political since we had a population of the country that was brain washed in believing that the government can see and do all. The frustration of the people is misplaced against FEMA. They are not their to get people jobs and rebuild their houses or dole out unlimited money. They are their to keep them alive and I did not hear of mass deaths after the initial storm. I would say mission accomplished. Hopefully people are starting to wake up and realize you are way better off with more power to the states and local area than you are in the centralized government. It is an argument of self reliance vs government reliance. Many big city types are completely reliant on the government hand and the victim mentality. Most big cities are democrat areas. Draw your on conclusions. That is the crux of democrat vs republican.

Thad Allen of the Coast Guard was put in charge of the government's response to the disaster. We have the coast guard, which is a fair amount of manpower, that could be aiding the situation, so saying that we don't have the manpower is ridiculous.

So we don't have the expertise, so we rely on outside experts as well as BP experts to help guide the matter. The government AIDS, I repeat AIDS the BP cleanup effort, and we have plenty of manpower and expertise for that. For those here who are obviously unable to unwilling to comprehend the word AID, it means HELP. I'm saying that the FEDS need to be doing MORE to HELP BP on the matter instead of relying purely on BP to deal with the mess.

And supporting Bush/Cheney does not mean liking the Kickbacks. Supporting Bush/Cheney meant not supporting John Kerry, who was a selfserving arrogant prick with thousand dollar haircuts and who had no plans on how to handle either war or how to actually run the country. And it showed up in his speeches and in the debates when he would be asked how he'd do something and his response would always be "I'll tell you how, but first, let me tell you what the current president did wrong..." and blah blah blah. Government kickbacks are the crux of what's wrong with these lifelong politicians that we have in office.

Actually I'd say it's an issue of 100% of your state's elected officials represent you. Only approx 2% (1/50) of the representatives at the federal level represent you. 98% of them are there in a competition to take your tax dollars to another state. And FEMA is a bloated wasteful organization. My wife used to work for FEMA.

Wow. You're amazing Jeremy. You continue to put words into my mouth (I never once said that you blamed any of this on Bush). Clearly you can't comprehend anything that I'm saying, so I'm done. Plus the long post that I had just typed up to contradict you just got erased because my mouse is spastic and clicks randomly, sending me off to random pages.

In short though.

OBAMA REJECTED OIL SKIMMERS THAT COULD HAVE COLLECTED A TOTAL OF 20,000 TONS OF OIL EACH DAY.

HE SHOULD BE AIDING (That's a fancy way of saying HELP) BP WITH THE CLEANUP NOT CONTROLLING IT COMPLETELY. Which is what I've been saying all along, but clearly you can't understand that.

Coast Guard = Plenty of manpower to help BP

Expertise - BP's expertise is enough, they direct the federal AID to what they need to do.

I'm done. If you can't even understand what I'm saying there, then you are completely oblivious to life itself.

"Coast Guard = Plenty of manpower to help BP"
Last time I checked, the USCG was aiding in the cleanup. However, the USCG is not an enormous outfit, and they have other responsibilities that include saving lives that do not go away simply because they are aiding in oil spill cleanup.

From your earlier post:

"It was your nature to blame all of the US's problems on George Bush!"

OBAMA REJECTED OIL SKIMMERS THAT COULD HAVE COLLECTED A TOTAL OF 20,000 TONS OF OIL EACH DAY.

HE SHOULD BE AIDING (That's a fancy way of saying HELP) BP WITH THE CLEANUP NOT CONTROLLING IT COMPLETELY. Which is what I've been saying all along, but clearly you can't understand that.

Are you sure that you have the complete story. I heard a report on NPR several days ago about this. The report said that the offers were not charity, but BP was expected to pay for those services. ThIs was not something that the President could authorize. Perhaps Obama could have pressured BP to accept the offers, but I don't know all of the details. But I'm sure the Republicans could spin it so that we were all misinformed.